Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one is trying to change the system, he's trying to work within the system.... Mueller is NOT a LAW BREAKER.... t's a real shame you seem to think he is.....he's accused someone and now doesn't want to show the evidence.
Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It's a public trial. Everything will come out. They don't have secret state trials in the US.so we are not smart enough to stop this tactic now? we know what they did but it was so clever there can be no defense? we that stupid?As expected, your ZeroHedge link is so full of inaccuracies and false information that it qualifies as “fake news”.
What Mueller is asking the court for is protection from the defendant disclosing the evidence to others because the data could be used by others to disrupt future electictions.
mueller is trying to hide evidence. he tried that before n the judge said no.
regardless of how lawless mueller is the fact remains that the accused
have a right to all evidence
The OP is a lie. The company is definitely getting discovery. What they can’t do is to disclose to third parties the data they receive on discovery and that’s what the negotiations are about.
It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
show me where i said he was a law breaker. i said he needs to follow the process, not try to go around it. if dropping it is his answer, great. he followed process. but he can't sit there and go "you're guilty but i can't tell you why - national security and all".No one is trying to change the system, he's trying to work within the system.... Mueller is NOT a LAW BREAKER.... t's a real shame you seem to think he is.....he's accused someone and now doesn't want to show the evidence.
He can work within the system, if it is necessary to hide their source....he can drop the indictment, if he feels it is necessary and there is no other way around keeping sources and methods that he is still using in his investigation that he does not want to reveal.
Why are you all so HAPPY about all of this....?
This seems like the simple defense strategy for any case Mueller brings up, since he claims he can't divulge legal information.show me where i said he was a law breaker. i said he needs to follow the process, not try to go around it. if dropping it is his answer, great. he followed process. but he can't sit there and go "you're guilty but i can't tell you why - national security and all".No one is trying to change the system, he's trying to work within the system.... Mueller is NOT a LAW BREAKER.... t's a real shame you seem to think he is.....he's accused someone and now doesn't want to show the evidence.
He can work within the system, if it is necessary to hide their source....he can drop the indictment, if he feels it is necessary and there is no other way around keeping sources and methods that he is still using in his investigation that he does not want to reveal.
Why are you all so HAPPY about all of this....?
the rest is you being delusional.
Muller's backpedaling and stalling says it all...The rules of disclosure make no exceptions for political hatchet men....If the "foreign adversary" is guilty, the disclosure of the alleged evidence wouldn't be of any surprise to them anyways.So now you’re pretending you know what Mueller is thinking? You have no idea what you’re talking about but you keep spewing lies and disinformation.
Where is YOUR evidence to back up these assertions? Why are you SO opposed to Mueller protecting national security against a foreign adversary.
Why do you keep making out that Mueller is being dishonest here when you really have no idea?
Why are you suborning the unrestricted disclosure of classified information of a foreign adversary?
Muller's backpedaling and stalling says it all...The rules of disclosure make no exceptions for political hatchet men....If the "foreign adversary" is guilty, the disclosure of the alleged evidence wouldn't be of any surprise to them anyways.So now you’re pretending you know what Mueller is thinking? You have no idea what you’re talking about but you keep spewing lies and disinformation.
Where is YOUR evidence to back up these assertions? Why are you SO opposed to Mueller protecting national security against a foreign adversary.
Why do you keep making out that Mueller is being dishonest here when you really have no idea?
Why are you suborning the unrestricted disclosure of classified information of a foreign adversary?
Muller is blowing more smoke than Mt. Vesuvius.
His behavior demonstrates that he didn't expect the defendants to show up...What other reason can there be for the PROSECUTION to ask for continuances and refusal to disclose?...If they had the goods, they would have been ready to roll from day one.Mueller isn’t “back pedalling” at all. And he’s not opposing disclosure to the defendant. He’s limiting what the defendant can do with the disclosure.
Why are you opposing his protection of American interests in favour of a giving away national secrets to the entire criminal Russian propaganda machine?
My only conclusions is that you’re in favour of the Russian takeover of the US government.
Robert Mueller isn’t your enemy. Vladimir Putin doesn’t have America’s best interests at heart. He wants American influence destroyed. Why do YOU want to help him?
Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It's a public trial. Everything will come out. They don't have secret state trials in the US.so we are not smart enough to stop this tactic now? we know what they did but it was so clever there can be no defense? we that stupid?
mueller is trying to hide evidence. he tried that before n the judge said no.
regardless of how lawless mueller is the fact remains that the accused
have a right to all evidence
The OP is a lie. The company is definitely getting discovery. What they can’t do is to disclose to third parties the data they receive on discovery and that’s what the negotiations are about.
It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
You have the right to face your accuser in the US.
Muller's backpedaling and stalling says it all...The rules of disclosure make no exceptions for political hatchet men....If the "foreign adversary" is guilty, the disclosure of the alleged evidence wouldn't be of any surprise to them anyways.So now you’re pretending you know what Mueller is thinking? You have no idea what you’re talking about but you keep spewing lies and disinformation.
Where is YOUR evidence to back up these assertions? Why are you SO opposed to Mueller protecting national security against a foreign adversary.
Why do you keep making out that Mueller is being dishonest here when you really have no idea?
Why are you suborning the unrestricted disclosure of classified information of a foreign adversary?
Muller is blowing more smoke than Mt. Vesuvius.
Mueller isn’t “back pedalling” at all. And he’s not opposing disclosure to the defendant. He’s limiting what the defendant can do with the disclosure.
Why are you opposing his protection of American interests in favour of a giving away national secrets to the entire criminal Russian propaganda machine?
My only conclusions is that you’re in favour of the Russian takeover of the US government.
Robert Mueller isn’t your enemy. Vladimir Putin doesn’t have America’s best interests at heart. He wants American influence destroyed. Why do YOU want to help him?
Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It's a public trial. Everything will come out. They don't have secret state trials in the US.regardless of how lawless mueller is the fact remains that the accused
have a right to all evidence
The OP is a lie. The company is definitely getting discovery. What they can’t do is to disclose to third parties the data they receive on discovery and that’s what the negotiations are about.
It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
You have the right to face your accuser in the US.
Bingo!
unless you not being reasonable is the problem.Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It's a public trial. Everything will come out. They don't have secret state trials in the US.The OP is a lie. The company is definitely getting discovery. What they can’t do is to disclose to third parties the data they receive on discovery and that’s what the negotiations are about.
It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
You have the right to face your accuser in the US.
Bingo!
That doesn’t mean that the details of the data will be disclosed to the general public at trial. The data will be entered as evidence, and the jury will hear about what it means but the datiled information which weaponized that data won’t be delved into nor will it be disclosed at trial.
The data would be very beneficial to Concord’s future involvement in a propaganda campaign and that’s why there’s an issue with disclosure to third parties.
I keep saying this because it’s true: the only people who would oppose Mueller’s restrictions would be those who want to see the US destroyed. If you are siding with Concord on this, you’re a Russian troll farmer.
There is no other reasonable conclusion.
Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It's a public trial. Everything will come out. They don't have secret state trials in the US.The OP is a lie. The company is definitely getting discovery. What they can’t do is to disclose to third parties the data they receive on discovery and that’s what the negotiations are about.
It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
You have the right to face your accuser in the US.
Bingo!
That doesn’t mean that the details of the data will be disclosed to the general public at trial. The data will be entered as evidence, and the jury will hear about what it means but the datiled information which weaponized that data won’t be delved into nor will it be disclosed at trial.
The data would be very beneficial to Concord’s future involvement in a propaganda campaign and that’s why there’s an issue with disclosure to third parties.
I keep saying this because it’s true: the only people who would oppose Mueller’s restrictions would be those who want to see the US destroyed. If you are siding with Concord on this, you’re a Russian troll farmer.
There is no other reasonable conclusion.
Doesn't anyone else find it very ODD that someone from another country would post on a United States political messageboard about OUR elected politicians every single DAY? That is really shady if you ask me.
He's trying to keep his alleged evidence out of the hands of the defense, which goes against every single precept of modern western law in general, and American law in particular...You'd either have to be stupid on purpose or a blind hack to not know this...I'm hedging my bet and taking the daily double.That doesn’t mean that the details of the data will be disclosed to the general public at trial. The data will be entered as evidence, and the jury will hear about what it means but the datiled information which weaponized that data won’t be delved into nor will it be disclosed at trial.
The data would be very beneficial to Concord’s future involvement in a propaganda campaign and that’s why there’s an issue with disclosure to third parties.
I keep saying this because it’s true: the only people who would oppose Mueller’s restrictions would be those who want to see the US destroyed. If you are siding with Concord on this, you’re a Russian troll farmer.
There is no other reasonable conclusion.
Mueller on Tuesday asked a federal judge in Washington for an order to protect voluminous evidence sought by lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting LLC, one of three companies and 13 Russian nationals charged in a February indictment alleging election meddling via social media.
unless you not being reasonable is the problem.Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It's a public trial. Everything will come out. They don't have secret state trials in the US.
It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
You have the right to face your accuser in the US.
Bingo!
That doesn’t mean that the details of the data will be disclosed to the general public at trial. The data will be entered as evidence, and the jury will hear about what it means but the datiled information which weaponized that data won’t be delved into nor will it be disclosed at trial.
The data would be very beneficial to Concord’s future involvement in a propaganda campaign and that’s why there’s an issue with disclosure to third parties.
I keep saying this because it’s true: the only people who would oppose Mueller’s restrictions would be those who want to see the US destroyed. If you are siding with Concord on this, you’re a Russian troll farmer.
There is no other reasonable conclusion.
unless you not being reasonable is the problem.Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
You have the right to face your accuser in the US.
Bingo!
That doesn’t mean that the details of the data will be disclosed to the general public at trial. The data will be entered as evidence, and the jury will hear about what it means but the datiled information which weaponized that data won’t be delved into nor will it be disclosed at trial.
The data would be very beneficial to Concord’s future involvement in a propaganda campaign and that’s why there’s an issue with disclosure to third parties.
I keep saying this because it’s true: the only people who would oppose Mueller’s restrictions would be those who want to see the US destroyed. If you are siding with Concord on this, you’re a Russian troll farmer.
There is no other reasonable conclusion.
What is unreasonable about limiting what Concord - a Russian company going to trial for its role in undermining the US election process, can do with the discovery materials.
The same people who want children jailed for crossing the border, are now screaming to treat this corporation which attacked the very foundations of your Republic, “fairly”.
You same people who are saying “Don’t trust the FBI” are carrying on about the constitutional rights of a foreign adversary.
Is that sane or reasonable?
unless you not being reasonable is the problem.Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
You have the right to face your accuser in the US.
Bingo!
That doesn’t mean that the details of the data will be disclosed to the general public at trial. The data will be entered as evidence, and the jury will hear about what it means but the datiled information which weaponized that data won’t be delved into nor will it be disclosed at trial.
The data would be very beneficial to Concord’s future involvement in a propaganda campaign and that’s why there’s an issue with disclosure to third parties.
I keep saying this because it’s true: the only people who would oppose Mueller’s restrictions would be those who want to see the US destroyed. If you are siding with Concord on this, you’re a Russian troll farmer.
There is no other reasonable conclusion.
What is unreasonable about limiting what Concord - a Russian company going to trial for its role in undermining the US election process, can do with the discovery materials.
The same people who want children jailed for crossing the border, are now screaming to treat this corporation which attacked the very foundations of your Republic, “fairly”.
You same people who are saying “Don’t trust the FBI” are carrying on about the constitutional rights of a foreign adversary.
Is that sane or reasonable?
i don't give a flying rat shit suffering from being on the tail end of 1000' of rat diarrhea streaming in a hot summer wind over a millennial picnic in the park.unless you not being reasonable is the problem.Wrong. They don't get to say "Someone told us you are a thief."It’s technical data which will not be made public in any sort of detail. Even in the trial. But given to hostile entities intact and in total, it could enable similar entities to hack future elections in the US and elsewhere.
You have the right to face your accuser in the US.
Bingo!
That doesn’t mean that the details of the data will be disclosed to the general public at trial. The data will be entered as evidence, and the jury will hear about what it means but the datiled information which weaponized that data won’t be delved into nor will it be disclosed at trial.
The data would be very beneficial to Concord’s future involvement in a propaganda campaign and that’s why there’s an issue with disclosure to third parties.
I keep saying this because it’s true: the only people who would oppose Mueller’s restrictions would be those who want to see the US destroyed. If you are siding with Concord on this, you’re a Russian troll farmer.
There is no other reasonable conclusion.
What is unreasonable about limiting what Concord - a Russian company going to trial for its role in undermining the US election process, can do with the discovery materials.
The same people who want children jailed for crossing the border, are now screaming to treat this corporation which attacked the very foundations of your Republic, “fairly”.
You same people who are saying “Don’t trust the FBI” are carrying on about the constitutional rights of a foreign adversary.
Is that sane or reasonable?
Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, according to Bloomberg.
and now for their defense, they get to look at all the evidence. SO - now mueller is saying we can't do that because of a security risk. well, you're the one who brought them into our court system - now you're saying we won't play fair???
This is incredible! Hey buddy, you brought the charges, make a case or quit.
